While fines incurred by the Washington Education Association
(WEA) and National Education Association (NEA) for violating Washington
state campaign laws are the highest in state history, critics
say the recent settlement "did not take the opportunity to
support and enforce the [state's] paycheck protection laws."
The decision may also force union members nationwide to pay for
the illegal activity of union leaders.

In 1992, Washington voters overwhelmingly passed a ballot initiative
requiring annual employee approval for any payroll deductions
used to fund political activity. A subsequent investigation by
the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), however, found the WEA
continued to collect political money through dues payments to
the union's Community Outreach Project. EFF also found the union
falsified many of its campaign reports, made improper fund transfers
and laundered a $410,000 contribution from the NEA to fight two
school choice ballot initiatives in 1996.

Under the terms of the settlement with Attorney General Christine
Gregoire, the union will pay $430,000 in penalties. Of this sum,
$330,000 will be divided and refunded to union members (most likely,
the estimated $600 annual dues assessment will drop by $5 per
member this year). An additional $100,000 in fines and legal costs
to be paid by the WEA and NEA will most likely be paid out of
the general union treasury (which is collected from mandatory
member assessments).

EFF criticizes the settlement for calling the violations "unintentional"
and dismissing all charges related to the illegal collection of
dues for political purposes. "The attorney general gutted
the initiative," said EFF President Bob Williams. "[I]t
now gives labor organizations the right to raid employees' paychecks
without consent for political purposes."

The state's settlement does not affect a similar lawsuit against
the WEA filed by EFF. An EFF memo points out "our legal action
may provide the only opportunity for the court to correct the
reinterpretation of the law." The organization is also running
commercials critical of the settlement on radio stations statewide.

At the recent California Teachers Association (CTA) "Equality
and Human Rights Conference" in Los Angeles, Kevin DeLeon
of the National Education Association (NEA) shocked union activists
with news that 70% of CTA members support Proposition 226, an
initiative on California's June primary ballot to require that
labor unions and employers receive annual approval before using
employee payroll deductions for state and local political activity.

DeLeon's revelation conflicts with assertions made on the "Defeat
Proposition 226" website claiming "three-quarters of
all union members - regardless of political affiliation - approve
of unions investing time and money in politics." It also
indicates organized labor will be forced to mount two separate
offensives to oppose Prop 226 - both with their own membership
and the general voting public.

As reported by the Education Intelligence Agency, Lee Berg
of the NEA's Center for the Revitalization of Urban Education
detailed a potential internal campaign for combating Prop 226.
Among proposed tactics is the demonization of Prop 226 supporters
like California Governor Pete Wilson and insurance executive J.
Patrick Rooney, asking union members "Why would your enemies
want to help you?" He also proposed that Prop 226 would lead
to the passage of school vouchers and tuition tax credit initiatives,
warning "we [will] no longer have the ability to control
what is taught."

Externally, DeLeon said "we are not going to use the word
union" since it would be counterproductive to emphasize Prop
226's perceived negative effects on unions with the majority of
California residents who are not union members. So far, organized
labor has publicly committed to spend over $10 million to defeat
Prop 226.

In the latest poll, conducted by the San Francisco Examiner,
64% of likely voters said they support Proposition 226.

Campaign Finance Factoids

Teamster Leaders: Free Speech for Me, But Not for
Thee

Pro-union literature claims "payroll protection"
legislation "makes it virtually impossible [for workers]
to participate in the political process." So do union rules,
it seems. The Teamsters fined United Parcel Service employee
and Teamster member Stephen Beard $10,000 for appearing on CNN
criticizing the fact that union members were not allowed to vote
on last year's UPS strike. Beard has also been the victim of
threats, hate mail and workplace sabotage he and his lawyers
attribute to his exercising his right to free speech.

AFL-CIO Leaders Give Secret Testimony About Financial
Wrongdoing

Columnist Robert Novak says AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard
Trumka, who publicly refused to testify in the federal probe
concerning fraud in the 1996 Teamsters election, gave secret
testimony to federal prosecutors in New York City during the
last week of February. Novak also reported subpoenas were issued
to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, Democratic fundraiser Terry
McAuliffe and Clinton confidant Harold Ickes.

Pro- and Anti-Proposition 226 Campaigns on the
Internet

Both sides of the Proposition 226 ("Campaign Reform Initiative")
election effort are on-line. The "Yes on 226!" campaign,
which is supporting "paycheck protection," can be found
at www.prop226.com. The union-organized opposition, "Californians
to Protect Employee Rights," can be found at www.defeatprop226.org.

(****EDITOR'S NOTE, February 2001: THESE TWO PROPOSITION 226
LINKS NO LONGER WORK.****

Political Money Monitor is published
by The National Center for Public Policy Research to provide information
on campaign finance and political choice issues. Coverage of an
event or article in Political Money Monitor does not imply endorsement
by The National Center for Public Policy Research. Copyright 1998
The National Center for Public Policy Research. Reprints of articles
in Political Money Monitor are permitted provided source is credited.